RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA versus THE STATE OF U. P. & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 219 · Decided: 13-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
219
RAMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA
v.
THE STATE OF U. P.  & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2021
[K. M. JOSEPH AND PAMIDIGHANTAM
SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.319 – Summons
purporting to invoke power u/s.319 CrPC – Challenge to – Murder
– Deposition of second respondent that her husband (deceased)
was murdered by his employer (the appellant) with the help of his
friends – Deceased was the driver of appellant – Application on
behalf of prosecution invoking s.319 CrPC – Sessions Judge held
that power u/s.319 CrPC has to be invoked and ordered to summon
the appellant – Order upheld by High Court – Held: The statement
of law as regards the standards fixed for invoking power u/s.319
CrPC  is contained in paragraphs 105 and 106 of the Constitution
Bench decision of Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh case – The test
as laid down in Hardeep Singh case for invoking power u/s.319
CrPC inter alia includes the principle that only when strong and
cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence, the
power u/s.319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised – The power cannot be
exercised in a casual and cavalier manner – The test to be applied
is one which is more than prima facie case which is applied at the
time of framing of charges – It will all depend upon the evidence
which is tendered in a given case as to whether there is a strong
ground within the meaning of paragraph 105 of  Hardeep Singh
case – Order of the Sessions Judge issuing summons, set aside –
Sessions Judge to re-consider the matter in light of the principles
enunciated in Hardeep Singh case.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. While the Supreme Court has approved of
relying upon deposition which has not suffered cross
examination for the purpose of invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C., it
is relevant to note the standards which have been fixed by this
Court for invoking the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.  The
   [2021] 6 S.C.R. 219
219
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
statement of law in this regard is contained in paragraphs 105
and 106 of Hardeep Singh case. [Para 7][222-E-F]
2.1. The respondents, no doubt, point out that the
deposition of the second respondent as given by her, would
suffice in law for the Court to invoke the power under Section
319 Cr.P.C., however, the matter must be reconsidered.[Para 8]
[223-D]
2.2. The test as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this
Court in Hardeep Singh case for invoking power under Section
319 Cr.P.C. inter alia includes the principle that only when strong
and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence,
the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. The
power cannot be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. The
test to be applied, as laid down by this Court, is one which is
more than prima facie case which is applied at the time of framing
of charges. It will all depend upon the evidence which is tendered
in a given case as to whether there is a strong ground within
the meaning of paragraph 105 of Hardeep Singh case. [Paras 10,
11][223-E-G]
3. The order passed by the Sessions Judge issuing
summons, is set aside. The Sessions Judge is directed to
consider the matter afresh in the light of the principles which
have been clearly enunciated by this Court in Hardeep Singh
case. [Paras 12, 13][223-H; 224-A-B]
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2014)
3 SCC 92 : [2014] 2 SCR 1 – followed.
Labhuji Amratji Thakor and Others v. State of Gujarat
and Another AIR 2019 SC 734 : [2018] 13 SCR 822
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 2 SCR 1
followed
Para 6
[2018] 13 SCR 822
referred to
Para 6
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 990 of 2021.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
221
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2020 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case under section 482/378/407 bearing
no. 93 of 2020.
Gaurav Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellant.
Adarsh Upadhyay, Abhishek Chaudhary, Sansriti Pathak, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Cour was delivered by
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This is yet another case where summons issued purporting to
invoke power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C.) has brought the newly summoned person to this Court.
3. FIR came to be lodged on 27.06.2015 by the second respondent
before us. It is inter alia alleged in the FIR that her husband(deceased)
told her that he is lea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.